strategic planfiles.ecan.govt.nz/public/lwrp/submissions/doc... · web viewrepresentative:elizabeth...

Representative: Elizabeth Soal, Policy ManagerOrganisation Name: Waitaki Irrigators Collective LimitedAddress: PO Box 159, Oamaru, 9444Telephone: 021 454 615Email: [email protected]

Signature: Date: 5 October 2012

Waitaki Irrigators Collective Limited

Submission to the Canterbury Regional

Council

Proposed Land and Water Regional PlanOctober 2012

mailto:[email protected]

About the Waitaki Irrigators Collective

The Waitaki Irrigators Collective Limited (WIC) is a company made up of shareholders comprised of the five irrigation schemes and a society of individual irrigators that take water from the Waitaki River (or its tributaries or connected groundwater) and use that water to irrigate land downstream of the Waitaki Dam. WIC was formed in 2010 by the major irrigation schemes in the lower Waitaki River catchment in response to a number of common issues which the schemes were facing at the time. In mid-2011, WIC expanded to include the incorporated society of individual irrigators. WIC represents over 580 irrigators, with an irrigable command area of over 75,000 hectares across North Otago and South Canterbury, which is approximately 12 per cent of irrigated land in New Zealand. The irrigators within the Collective contribute approximately $550 million per annum in gross income to the local and national economies, and represent a capital value of land (with infrastructure) in excess of $2.5 billion. The overarching goal of WIC is to ensure the ongoing surety of water for its members. There are various dimensions to water surety, including surety of supply, reliability of supply, resource consent conditions relating to water take and usage, and community support for irrigation. WIC seeks to gain surety of supply within an approach which recognises the need for continuous improvement and environmental protection.WIC recognises and accepts the need to work with the community within which it operates, in order to promote and support social and economic development. WIC’s role is neither technical nor operational (although it may facilitate operational or technical projects), but to lead the development of an integrated social contract between irrigators and the wider Waitaki community of interest.Since formation, the WIC structure and collective way of working has demonstrated itself to be a highly effective mechanism for developing integrated water management strategies. WIC sees itself as a model for aligning irrigation interests in order to make investment decisions more meaningful and effective. WIC is working on projects which seek to expand and improve irrigation development within existing scheme structures. A joined up entity such as WIC will allow for improved efficiencies and effectiveness which will lead to economic growth.The shareholders of WIC are:

Upper Waitaki Community Irrigation Company Limited; North Otago Irrigation Company Limited; Morven, Glenavy, Ikawai Irrigation Company Limited; Maerewhenua District Water Resource Company Limited; Lower Waitaki Irrigation Company Limited; Waitaki Independent Irrigators Incorporated.

These schemes and individuals use irrigation water for production across the primary sector, including the agriculture, horticulture, dairying and viticulture industries. Some of the schemes also provide water to other industries, town supplies and sports clubs. WIC

2

represents a large number of farmers, farming companies and irrigators who create significant wealth for their communities, well beyond the farm gate.The vast majority of irrigators within the Collective have water take consents within Environment Canterbury territory. The Morven, Glenavy, Ikawai Irrigation Company, the Upper Waitaki Community Irrigation Company, the Maerewhenua District Water Resource Company, and the majority of the irrigators within the Waitaki Independent Irrigators Incorporated Society use water to irrigate land within Environment Canterbury territory. This submission is set out in two parts – a narrative submission which discusses aspects of the plan generally, followed by a table setting our WIC’s submissions and relief sought in relation to specific sections of the Plan.

Narrative submission

WIC is extremely supportive of the changes in approach that have been adopted by the Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) in recent years. In particular, we are encouraged by the establishment of the Zone Committees as a mechanism to ensure that local communities are able to set the values and limits that apply to the waterbodies in their catchments. We are also supportive of the general move towards a more consultative approach to land and water management.WIC is also supportive of the simplified and streamlined approach to Plan development that the pLWRP represents. The NRRP was overly long, unwieldy, and complicated for resource users and professional advisors to understand and implement. However, there are still some policies within the LWRP which are complicated and take several readings to understand.However, WIC submits that the section 32 Report is inadequate in assessing the costs and benefits of the pLWRP. For example, in relation to nutrient discharge rules, the Report states that the “costs of obtaining a resource consent only being incurred in the more difficult situations where the environment is more sensitive.” We consider this statement to be a gross understatement, as the pLWRP makes it difficult to change land use even is areas where water quality are outcomes are being met (green zones). WIC supports the submission of the Federated farmers of New Zealand that a full economic analysis of the pLWRP should have been undertaken prior to the plan change being notified.Anecdotal evidence suggests that land values in areas that are zoned orange or red are already being affected by the provisions of the LWRP. Financial institutions are less likely to provide funding to farmers and irrigation scheme developers where it is unclear what the impacts of the sub-regional rules will be (as these have not yet been set), but where the Council has signalled that land use change will be constrained through the zoning process. Although the majority of the lower Waitaki catchment has been zoned as “green”, WIC is concerned over the way the policies and rules as written in the pLWRP will provide a “default” position for the Zone Committees when setting limits.There are many rules within the pLWRP which allow for activities to be undertaken with a permitted activity status, however such activities cannot be undertaken along the margins of the Lower Waitaki River, as the entire length of the Lower River (as well as significant sections of the Hakataramea River) have been designated as a sensitive site for the purposes of salmon spawning during the NRRP process. WIC submits that this classification be

3

reviewed as it is not clear what the effect that these rules seek to avoid/remedy is. We submit that there are specific sites within both rivers that are spawning sites, and close definition of these sites should be set out in the relevant schedule. In addition to the specific submissions we make below, WIC supports of the submissions made by Irrigation New Zealand (INZ).

Appearance before the Council

WIC would like to present its submission to the Council in person.

4

(1) The specific provisions of the Plan that our submission relates to are:

(2) Our submission is that: (3) Relief sought from Environment Canterbury

Section & page number

Sub-section/point Oppose/support (in part or full)

Reasons

2 – 4-13 Definitions Support in part Amend definitions as follows:

Changed

Remove part 1 or instead relate to additional irrigated area. For part 2 it should be rewritten as a combination of a percentage (20% - which is consistent with the error and uncertainty associated with OVERSEER) combined with a number once a threshold is reached to avoid rewarding poor performers (25kg/ha threshold with a +5kg/ha as the maximum change). The explanation given in the Key Points section of INZ’s submission justifies such an approach.

Efficiency

Add dynamic efficiency to the definition “.......and includes dynamic, technical and allocative efficiency”.

EMS for Irrigation

See submission of INZ.

Infrastructure

Part e) needs greater clarity. “A water supply distribution system, including intake structures, storage, distribution structures, channels and pipes, and application

equipment”.

Irrigation

Irrigation is used for the production of vegetation for human or animal consumption.

“.......for the purpose of assisting with the production of vegetation or stock on that land.......”

Water body

Make clear this does not include farm or irrigation races and storages

Add the following definitions under Water Permit Transfers

Temporary water permit transfers are of short duration, typically less than 5 years, and are made between properties (titles) or individuals.Permanent transfers encompass all other scenarios. However, they do not include land sale related transfers of water permits.

4 – 1 4.6 Oppose in part This policy could negatively affect the ability of water permit holders to obtain renewal resource consents. Not all resource consent have a common expiry date, therefore those with expiry dates prior to others abstracting from the same waterbody will face a general presumption that their resource consent application would be declined. The policy should specifically recognise the importance of prior investment and the need for future certainty in order to maintain economic production.

Overallocation should be dealt with through a separate collaborative and inclusive process, rather than through consent expiries.

An exception to the policy be provided, whereby existing water permit holders are not disadvantaged due to consent expiry date.

Addition of a new strategic policy in section 4 which sets out the

6

principles to be followed when addressing overallocation – an inclusive, collaborative process which recognises issues around prior investment.

4 – 1 4.8 Oppose in part This policy, in effect, elevates priority outcomes set out in ZIPs to a status equivalent to those in the formal planning framework. This is inappropriate, as the ZIP consultation and formulation process was not a statutory one with appeal provisions. Although it is accepted that ZIP outcomes should be implemented as they are the result of a collaborative process, submissions were made to the Zone Committees on the basis of the ZIPs not being statutory documents within the planning framework. For example, planning decisions in a Zone could be influenced by priority outcomes set in the ZIPs of the adjacent Zone(s), which the community in the first Zone might not have had any input into developing.

Schedule 16, through this policy, is also elevated in the planning framework, when it is actually simply a high level concept. It is likely that the information and assumptions made are likely to change over time. The policy should reflect this.

Amend policy to ensure that ZIP outcomes do not become elevated into the formal planning framework.Amend policy to address issue that regional strategy for water harvest and use may change over time.

4 – 2 Water Quality outcomes for rivers

Oppose in part. The need for regional limits is unclear, given that the Zone Committees will be establishing limits through the sub-regional chapter development process. The inclusion of these limits could be taken as something of a “minimum” or a baseline from which the Zone Committees will go on to establish sub-regional limits. Limits need to be set taking into account a variety of factors, most notably the importance of balancing the different types of values that each community wish to see in their waterbodies – across all four areas of wellbeing. There is high variability across Canterbury – a fact which has been recognised in the CWMS collaborative process – this seems to be ignored in the policy.

Delete reference to Table 1 in its current form and refer to limits which are achievable (in a cost-effective way), appropriate for the water bodies concerned and consistently applied.Acknowledge that the Zone Committee collaborative approach is a more appropriate mechanism for the establishment of catchment-scale freshwater outcomes and

7

limits, with full understanding of their implications for the community.State that it is the Zone Committees role to critically examine the default water quality settings and recommend alternatives where appropriate, for incorporation into sub-regional plans.

4 – 4 Water quality outcomes for unconfined gravel aquifers of shallow groundwater that are predominantly recharged by soil drainage

Oppose in part. As above.

4 – 4 Water quality outcomes for unconfined gravel aquifers of deep groundwater predominantly recharged by rivers

Oppose in part. As above.

4 – 5 Discharge of contaminants to or to water

4.11

Oppose in part Clarification of what “no adverse effects on drinking water quality” means. This policy will potentially significantly impact upon the limits-setting process at the sub-regional level, as the assumption will be made that all groundwater sources need to be maintain current nutrient levels, even where an increase in (for example) nitrate levels would still be within World Health Organisation standards for drinking water.

4 – 6 Soil stability Oppose in part Waterbody includes a modified watercourse, and therefore potentially farm drains. It might not be appropriate, nor

Rewrite the policy to read:

8

4.19 achievable to maintain continuous vegetation cover adjacent to these courses. This policy seems very broad. What is continuous vegetation?

“...is prevented by, wherever practicable, maintaining continuous vegetation...”

4 – 7 Livestock exclusion

4.26Oppose in part It is accepted that stock such as cattle should be excluded from

waterbodies. However, intensively farmed stock includes sheep on irrigated land. Sheep grazing on river banks can be beneficial in relation to weed control and have a much lesser impact on water quality than cattle (for example).

The exclusion of stock from sensitive sites includes salmon spawning sites, which includes the entire reach of the Lower Waitaki River, from the Waitaki Dam to the coast. This policy implies that all land (even where non-intensive stock are grazed, such as sheep) must be fenced down the length of the River, which equates to hundreds of kilometres of fencing on banks which are very prone to erosion due to the dynamic nature of the braided river system. The costs of this have not been adequately assessed.

Either provide an exception for sheep in this policy, or amend the definition of “outdoor intensive farming”.

Review of classification of the Lower Waitaki River as a sensitive site due to salmon spawning. All policies and rules which refer to sensitive sites should be subsequently amended.

4 – 7 Nutrient discharges – general

4.28 & 4.29

Oppose in part All of the policies relating to nutrient discharges are long, wordy and difficult to understand.

Policy 4.29 refers to the need to set nutrient discharge allowances where regional water quality outcomes are not being met. Policy 4.28 refers to nutrient discharge allowances being set more generally through plan changes. Nutrient discharge allowance regimes can be difficult to establish and administer. Policy 4.28 assumes that this is the most effective means of protecting water quality in all catchments – even where water quality outcomes are currently being met. This may not be what specific communities through their Zone Committees wish to establish in their catchment.

The policies around nutrient discharges use nitrogen as a proxy indicator for all nutrients. It is questionable whether this is

Nutrient management should occur through the setting of targets which should be managed to through an Audited Self Management framework. The Policy should not refer to Nutrient Discharge Allowances as the mechanism which will be used as to achieve the limits set at the sub-regional level.

9

appropriate in all catchments, given that different areas will have different (natural) limiting factors.

4 – 7-9 Nutrient discharges – Region-wide policies

4.31 - 4.33

What is a “significant and enduring reduction”?

Assessment of effects in combination with the effects of other land uses or discharges”

This does not quite fit with the Rules in Section 5, as in some cases a resource consent is NOT required, where there are nutrient limits attached to water permits (although FEMPs are still required). Policy wording needs to be changed to fit with the Rule (unless of course the Rule is changed). See also Policy 4.35.

Either the policy or the rules need to be amended to ensure consistency.

4 – 9 Nutrient zones

4.34

Another very wordy policy. This places a heavy burden on applicant – they must be able to prove what impacts other discharges are having in order to assess the cumulative effect their proposed change will be. This will make land use change extremely difficult and costly, which will already be having a detrimental effect on land values and borrowers’ ability to finance sustainably, even where they are not contemplating a land use change in some nutrient zones,.


4.36Support in part Whilst the discharges listed should be allowed as they are

important to overall community health and wellbeing, there should be some additional wording in the policy which seeks to ensure that these discharges do not lead to deterioration of water quality. All discharges should be subject to continuous improvement requirements, not only rural farming discharges.


4.35

The wording of this policy does not fit with the corresponding rule – a condition on a permit addressing “nutrient management” (policy) is not the same as a condition addressing “the maximum amount of nitrogen that may be leached” (rule 5.42).

(Obviously), policies don’t need to be as specific as rules in their wording, but this rule and policy are potentially in conflict with

Amend Rule 5.42 as requested below.

10

each other. See discussion of Rule 5.42, below.

4 – 9 Nutrient discharges – sub-regional chapters

4.38

Oppose in part “Predicted” nutrient losses could be different from actual losses. This could mean that there no effective connection between the land use controls and the actual effects on water quality. Actual losses more important. Difficulty in using models as a regulatory tool.

4 – 10 Abstraction of water

4.46Oppose in part In principle, WIC recognises the need for effective community

drinking water supplies. However, there is a risk that the increased development of lifestyle blocks and urban expansion into rural areas could see legal, consented abstractors having a reduction in reliability of supply due to more abstraction from waterbodies for drinking water supplies. ECan should consider methods to encourage the use of irrigation infrastructure to support community drinking water supplies where practicable and possible, and this should be taken into account when determine annual volumetric allocations and so on.


4.47Oppose in part See above.


4.48Support in part Support for the position that existing irrigation infrastructure is

part of the background environment. However, should this only be limited to “schemes”? See also LAWF recommendations that it is inappropriate to manage water resources through short consent durations. How to define efficiency (technical, field, catchment etc etc)? If there is to be a negative effect on groundwater recharge where it enhances water quality, or in a catchment that is not water scarce, a policy that drives for water use efficiency over other concerns could lead to unintended consequences – such as the removal of trees, increased energy consumption and so on. Also cf Policy 4.70 which recognises the importance of recharge.

Addition of words to the policy so that it reads “...improvements in the efficiency of water use (where appropriate, taking into account potential adverse effects on other aspects of community wellbeing)...”


4.53Support This has been proven to be an effective and practical means of

improving water quality outcomes and a means of improving instream biodiversity values, etc. Policies should be encouraging this as a method for reaching water quality and quantity

11

objectives.


4.55Support in part Support the policy in principle, but removal and return of water

could still negatively impact upon consented groundwater users. They should at least be notified of the use, if associated rules do not already provide this.

Addition of words “and where there are no negative effects on other abstractors with a resource consent.”

4 – 13 Efficient use of water

4.66Support in part As per issues raised relating to Policy 4.48, it is important that

efficiency at the catchment level is considered, not just at the field-level. This will ensure that water abstracted is recognised as being part of a dynamic system, so that there are allowances made for groundwater recharge, and other matters which can be affected by field-level efficiency – such as energy consumption and the retention of trees.

Addition of words so that the Policy reads “...will be reasonable for the intended use and will be efficient at the catchment level”.


4.67Oppose Defining the irrigation season in this way is unhelpful. In some

areas, the highest rainfall is in the middle of the summer, with warm dry periods occurring in the Spring. Irrigation water is of vital importance to horticulture and viticulture industries for frost-fighting. Irrigation water should be able to be applied when good management practice determines that irrigation is viable. The are also reasons irrigation may be used outside of the “season”, such as for activating herbicide.

Delete policy.


4.70Support It is important that efficiency requirements recognise the need

to ensure there is groundwater recharge.N/A

4 – 13 Transfer of water permits, 4.71-73

Support in part It is not clear that the rules which actually lead to reductions in overallocation. Transfers are not necessarily the most effective means to achieve this. However, there are currently few incentives for individuals in overallocated catchments to transfer into irrigation schemes. Policies which enable this to happen in a more streamlined and cost-effective fashion are to be encouraged. The differences between temporary and permanent transfers need to be recognised within the policy – with an exception provided for land sales.

Over-allocation should be addressed through an inclusive and collaborative approach which provides certainty to resource

Amend policy 4.73 so that it reads “...irrigation scheme or is for a temporary transfer, in all other instances, except for transfers associated with land sales, enable the transfer...”

12

users in overallocated areas (see earlier discussion on strategic policies).

4 – 13 Sharing water in times of restrictions

4.74

Support Policies and plan provisions should be supportive of water-users developing their own solutions to manage restrictions, where appropriate.

4 – 13 Consent duration, lapse periods and giving effect to water permits

4.75

Oppose In most cases, a longer period is required than two years to exercise a resource consent, particularly when considering the development of infrastructure. A policy such as this will be ineffective in practice as most consents for irrigation would need o be longer than 2 years, rather than the exceptions.

Amend policy so the lapse period is three years for individual consent holders and five years for irrigation schemes.

4 – 13 Consent duration, lapse periods and giving effect to water permits

4.76

Oppose in part Although it is accepted that there is a need to improve environment outcomes in some areas, LAWF has identified that/recommended that short resource consent duration times are not an appropriate method to addressing such issues. They do not support good, effective long-term planning. Financial institutions are less likely to assist resource users with very limited consent conditions. Therefore, significant investment which will ultimately lead to better long-term solutions will be hampered.

The policy should seek to encourage more enabling resource consent conditions that will lead to improvements in the longer term, rather than driving short-term, reactionary investment decision-making.

4 – 14 Activities in beds of lakes and rivers

4.86

Oppose in part For some intake structures, there may be no alternative but to carry out maintenance works in flowing water. For example, work is frequently required on irrigation intakes after high flows. For smaller rivers, the impact of this may be considered as more than minor, even though the work is of very short duration.

Amend the policy to make provision for works around existing intake structures to continue to be legitimately and easily undertaken after freshes and high flow events.

Region-wide rules

5 – 11 & 12

Farming

5.39 – 5.42Oppose in part OVERSEER was designed as a tool to help farmers forecast their

fertiliser use and production levels. It is generally inappropriate for a model to be used in the rules in a planning framework. Although the rules around reporting nitrogen losses are not overly onerous, the CRC has sent a “signal” to the Zone Committees that 20kg/N/ha is an appropriate limit to be

13

managing to. As the sub-regional rules and industry best practice guidelines for the Plan have not yet been set, it is unclear why an arbitrary limit of 20kg/N/ha has been adopted. Concerns on use of OVERSEER – not appropriate for all farming types. Using 11 August 2012 as the date for land use change means that those who were undertaking a lengthy process of conversion (which can take many months) will be caught by the land-change rules, even though the change process commenced prior to the Plan change. The definition of change is not adequate to take account of seasonal variations. There should be a more flexible mechanism adopted in order to assess whether the land use has actually changed in practice.

The use of good management practice and audited self-management are to be encouraged as mechanisms for promoting good water quality.

5 – 12 Farming

5.43Oppose in part It is unclear why land change in area which is a green zone and is

meeting all of conditions in the rule, except condition 1 must be a restricted discretionary activity. This rule will significantly affect land use, changes and land values in areas where there are no current water quality problems. The RMA seeks to manage negative effects. It is unclear why resource consents are required in areas where there are no water quality issues. Very few irrigation schemes currently hold nutrient-limited resource consents. It would be inappropriate for currently operating irrigation schemes to apply for amendments to their consents to include nutrient limits when the limits for the specific catchment or sub-regional have not been set through the community collaborative process. This also disadvantages individual irrigators who are not part of an irrigation scheme, as they can never have a permitted activity status for their land change. Therefore, there are very few areas where such land use changes could occur without a resource consent being required at the farm level.

Amendment to the Rule as follows:“...green on the Planning Maps is a permitted activity if the following conditions are met : [list conditions 2 – 6 of Rule 5.42]

5 – 13 Farming

5.44 Oppose in part The Council is affecting land use values prior to limits and

allocation regimes being established at the catchment level. The Amend Rule to read “on the Planning Maps is a restricted

14

Hakataramea Valley is an example where the land use is classified as at risk, even though water quality is currently generally very good. Resource consents have been granted for abstraction and use of water for irrigation, however, the provisions of this Plan effectively limit the ability of the scheme to develop, as financial institutions are less likely to provide the necessary funding to enable scheme development. This is contrary to parts of the CWMS which encourages sustainable irrigation development.

discretionary activity.”

5 – 13 Farming

5.45Oppose in part As above – non-complying asserts that land use change is

generally unacceptable – before this has been determined by the local community through the Zone Committee sub-regional process.

Amend Rule to read “on the Planning Maps is a discretionary activity”.

5 – 13 Farming

5.46 – 5.49Oppose in part It is questionable whether the high number of required FEMPs

will be able to be developed, processed, audited and so on in the allowed timeframes. A 7-10 year timeframe would be more realistic for the implementation of this policy.

Amend policy to allow a longer timeframe, eg from 1 July 2020.

Bores

5.82Oppose in part There is the potential for there to be some interference from

bore development tests with connected waterbodies, this could potentially affect other abstractors with minimum flow conditions.

Additional words in Rule 5.82 which require that prior notification be provided to all abstractors using water from connected waterbodies within a 2km radius be notified before testing commences.Additional wording be included into Schedule 11 to this effect, and a guideline added to encourage that such testing be completed outside of the irrigation season.

Water from Canals or Water Storage

Support

15

5.94

Transfer of water permits

5.107

If the intention of the transfer of water rules is to reduce over-allocation then it is not clear that the rules as designed will achieve this. It is perhaps more likely that the transfers will simply not happen and over-allocation would continue. Over-allocation on paper does not necessarily mean overallocation in practice. The Plan needs to recognise the difference between temporary and permanent transfers.

The rule framework should incorporate mechanisms to streamline the transfer of consents from individuals to schemes which can reduce overallocation and increase reliability in some areas. Perhaps through permitted activity status. Policy 4.73 anticipates this, but the only rule which seeks to implement the policy is 5.107.5(a). The transfer (or even surrender) of a consent and joining an irrigation scheme can initially be very expensive, so there needs to be incentives built into the Plan to encourage this.

Stock exclusion from waterbodies

5.133

Oppose in part See above discussion on sensitive sites in relation to the Lower Waitaki River.

As above.


5.134


As above.


5.134 -5.137


As above.

Vegetation in lake and riverbeds

5.143


As above.

Earthworks and vegetation clearance in


As above.

16

riparian areas

5.147

Schedules WIC supports the submissions made by INZ in relation to the Schedules.

17

strategic planfiles.ecan.govt.nz/public/lwrp/submissions/doc... · web viewrepresentative:elizabeth...

Documents